Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 009

Thursday, March 29 2001

• Re: IdE, IdT and Neshomo Yeseiro
• Re: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• Re: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza
• Re: water on Pesach
• Fat kohahim, the seder with talmidim, and G-d vs. HaShem
• Re: Seudah Sh'lishish (was: EPSBEFAGE, was:Erev Pesach she' chal b'Sh abbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters)
• Matzeh Mehl rolls
• Re: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza
• Eating matza Erev Pessach
• Matzah mehl Rolls on Erev Pesach
• Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza
• RE: Shower in Lieu of Tevilas Ezra?
• shower for tevilat Ezra
• shower as t'villat ezra
• IdT and IdE
• Re: IdE, IdT and Neshomo Yeseiro
• Neshomo Yeseiro
• Re: IdE, IdT and Neshomo Yeseiro
• IdT/Ide, VIP MME
• Kahal and Pesach
• Re: Bittul Chometz-TT-Emuna - Related VIDC

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:26:56PM -0600, R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: On Shabbos, as part of the IdE, we receive Or Makkif in addition to our
: general Or Penimi - but this is not an *extra* neshomo, but, rather,
: an additional portion of our existing neshomo as a mattono (Beitza there)

So much for the thought I quoted besheim R' Chaim Davis a while back.
How can we testify on Shabbos to ma'aseh bereishis? We weren't there!
He suggested that we can testify to yetzirah yeish mei'ayin because
each Shabbos a neshamah yeseirah is created for us.

Nice thought, not muchrach. Not intended as a kushia.

He added in response to myself:
: >I don't understand the identification with the avos. Look at how the avos
: >describe Mori'ah. Avraham sees it as a har, as the chol rising up toward
: >HKBH. Yitzchak finds a sadeh, a place where he can radiate kedushah to the
: >surrounding environment as my greatgrandfather put it (Divrei Yisrael I,
: >Vayeitzei; see http://www.aishdas.org/asp/vayeitzei.html>). Yaakov dwells
: >there in Beis E-lokim, a tziruf.

: Ah, the problem with RSRH.

RSRH?! I quoted my great grandfather, R' YAA Krieger, who in his day was
the rav of non-Austritt frum community of Frankfurt!

: Har is above us, and the aura emanates from above down - IdE
: Sadeh is something I work at and raise the crop therein up - IdT
: Bayis, we can agree on - Ze'eir Anpin.

The problem is that Avraham isn't standing betachtis hahar. His mountain
climbing through 10 nisyonos to the akeidah -- at the top of the mountain.
Nor did Yitzchak see a field as a place in which he worked. He went
lasu'ach basadeh. His normal relationship to fields were that he went to
ownerless fields, supported entirely through siyata dishmaya, and let his
sheep eat there.

And once you do convince me that your view is correct, I would argue
that if the symbols can be interpreted in two diametrically opposed ways,
they aren't very good symbols.

:>> R' Shlomo Fisher notes that Shabbos is, overwhelmingly, a manifestation of
:>> IdE, as opposed to Yom Tov, which is IdT - except for Pesach, where the
:>> Ge'ulah was an IdE - without Am Yisroel's merit, or even great longing ...

: >Then why do we set the date for Pesach, as we do for Succos? One would
: >think that Shabbos, which is primarily IdE, is of course a schedule
: >set by HKBH, and that yamim tovim depend on beis din's kiddush hachodesh
: >just because it sets dates for IdT. In which case, how does Pesach
: >jibe?

: Good question! Nu, zog a teirutz...

If I had one, I would have given it yesterday.

Thinking about it only got me more perplexed. I started with Shavu'os,
whose date is dependent on Pesach's -- less bechirah in that than in
Pesach or Succos's date.

Thinking about why, and of the regalim in these terms, the following
question hit me: if we didn't earn the ge'ulah, then why isn't Succos
also a celebration of the gemilas chessed we got before earning it? What
did we do between Pesach and Marah to warrant ananei hakavod?

And if the two mitzvos of Marah plus whatever additional hilchos Shabbos
we got with the mun were enough to earn Shavu'os, why wasn't the korban
Pesach an act of IdT sufficient for ge'ulah?

: A kushya I have had since my first introduction to Kabbalistic systems in 
: ninth grade is, in the IdT scheme of Sefirah, why do we start from Chesed 
: and descend to Malchus - should it not be the opposite.

I assume that it's not the supernal chessed, but the one that is part of
my tzelem E-lokim. Omer is therefore very much about middos, improving
our netiyos as divided into 49 categories by the Eitz Chayim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

"Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote:
> I think you meant the fourth hour, which is when the issur achilas 
> chametz kicks in.

Yes I stand corrected. I was thinking Ten o'clock [see below -mi] and
it came out Sha HaAsiri and the tenth hour. I need to get more sleep.


>> In order to avoid making a Bracha SheAino Tzricha, you wash for
>> the first meal (on Lechem Mishna), eat a Kezayis, Bentch, WALK AWAY FOR
>> A SHORT WHILE (so as not to make it appear that you are just bentching
>> in order to artificially create another Seudah)...

> Why a "short while"? ... This time I'm shooting for enough time to 
> have fifteen minutes or so between meals.

Well it depends how you interpret "a short while". obviously I meant more
than a minute or two. I was thinking in term of a major interuption such
as going for a walk, or learning or just plain reading the paper.

> And 10:00 is late (probably because you guys are on DST by then). 

You're right. I was thinking in terms of Shaos Zmanios.

>> In order to satisfy those Shitos which say you aren't Yotze
>> Shaleshudos in ther morning, you can then rely on those who say you can
>> be Yotze Shaleshudos with meat or fruit and eat that after the sixth hour.

> I think you should daven Mincha first. 

L'Chchila but not required.

>> The Gra did not eat Shaleshudes under these conditions.

> At all? Is this in Maaseh Rav somewhere? 

I saw it mentioned in Torah L'Daas.
 
HM

Corrections/Clarifications:

I wrote:

"Of course there are some people who eat Matza Ashira, and IIUC this is
what the CRC and the Dayan Of Agudath Israel of the Midwest reccomend."

The CRC and Dayan Feurst recommended Matzah Ashiroh only for the seudos
eaten BEFORE the Isur Achilas Chametz begins, not for Shaleshudes that
is eaten after Mincha Gedolah which is well after that time.

I wrote: The Gra did not eat Shaleshudes under these conditions.

Not accurate. I mis-remembered and just re-read it and here is what
it said:

It is brought down in "Maseh HaRav" (Os 185) that the Gra did not eat
Shaleshudes on Yomim Tovim but did do so on Achron Shel Pesach because
of his love of the Mitzva of eating Matzah and the Zman Mitzva was about
to end.

HM

On 28 Mar 01, at 18:41, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:35:05AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>: One you can see and the other you can't. Like with bugs in
>: vegetables. You're only mechuyav to check with your eyes; not with
>: a microscope.

> I think RET's problem is that after the bread ends up in the water system,
> it too isn't nir'eh la'ayin.

Ain hachi nami. But at the point where it goes into the water 
system, it can be seen (unlike things that go into the air). And at 
that point it is not nisbatel because of the issur ma'she'hu of 
chametz b'Pesach. I think that's the rationale anyway (personally, I 
use tap water on Pesach).

-- Carl

[This thread started on Areivim, and is being moved here. -mi]

SBA: <Another picture story (I hope I am recalling it correctly) In some
old machzorim, the Shaar blatt has an illustration of Moshe Rabbenu
and Aharaon Hakohen, with MR being a tall thin person whilst AH short
squat and wide. Some years ago I saw a pshat from some rebbe (obviously
bederech halotzah), that we know that MR was very tall (10 amos iirc)
and it also states that AH was 'shokul' keneged MR -- he 'weighed' the
same as MR... And the only way an average height AH could achieve this
would have been by being much wider....Hmm?>

It's a nice vort, but I propose that there's a reason 'al pi halokho.
Remember, all qodshei qodoshim have to be eaten by the Kohanim in
the Azoro.

In the midbor, there weren't so many kohanim, and the qorbanos tzibbur
didn't decrease. The 24 mishmoros didn't start until later, in the time
of Dovid and Shmuel; in the midbor there were only 8. So Aharon's sons
and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren were on duty every other month,
and Aharon was on duty all the time as the Kohen godol.. Eating raw meat
all the time in the mishkon, with the oily n'sokhim for a side dish,
I would think that the kohanim gained a lot of weight; I think they
did in the time of the Beis haMiqdosh, too, but there were many more,
and they were on duty only twic a year and on yomim tovim. (R. Moshe
Feldman is right, they should have been exercising, but I don't really
think they had too many exercise bikes in the mishkon during the day,
and at night the kohanim were probably tired from standing all day.)

And, speaking of qorbonos, another issue:

Joel Rich: <Given the discussion concerning the primary nature of
vhigadita lbincha, how do you understand the prominent placement of the
story of the 4 rabbis and their talmidim celebrating pesach together --
it seems like they stayed with their talmidim in one's Yeshiva rather
than celebrating with family(unless you assume they all had their families
with them)?>

SBA: <See Rashi on Veshinantom Levonecho: "...elu hatalmidim..">

Again, I think the answer lies elsewhere. Presumably this took place not
so long after the hurban. It appears likely from hints in the mishna that
even after the hurban, talmidei hakhomim (the "p'rushim") were behaving
very much as they did when the Beis Hamiqdosh was m'khunan 'al m'khono.

I posted once a while ago a tentative heshbon about the shortage of sheep
that will ensue the first year, at least, that we can offer qorbon Pesah.
The heshbon was based on the fact that an average year-old lamb gives
something like 60 pounds of meat. To me, that means that each haburah is
going to have to have at least 80-100 people. R. David Bannett quibbled
with me about the size of a kazayis, but that just makes it worse. With
smaller kazeisim, you're going to have over 120 people for one lamb,
and even more if, like on other years, you have the hagigas 'arbo'o
'osor, which is also a mitzva to eat and must be eaten before it becomes
nosar. In that case, people are probably only going to eat a minimum of
each (at the very least 3 kazeisim, 2 of the qorbon pesah because one
has to be for afiqomen). Even with smaller lambs, you're going to have
a lot of people in each havurah/haburah (yes, R. David, so many people
there is a danger of habburah).

I suggest that for years thereafter, people still ate the Seder in a
habura, as they had when the Beis HaMiqdosh stood, and so there were many,
many people at each seder, including the women and children. The story
of R. Eli'ezer and R. Y'hoshua' and R. Tarfon et al. does not refer to
during the seder only. The point of the story is that they remained awake
all night being 'oseq in the mitzva of sippur y'tzi'as Mitzrayim. Picture
to yourself: if they and all the wives and kinder are at the seder, and
their talmidim, too, after they drink the fourth kos, what do you think
happened? Well, what happens at your seder? Only y'hidim stay awake to
learn or say Shir haShirim. The wifes go to bed as soon as they can;
they are exhausted.

Di kinder, it is almost a miracle if they are still up. That leaves the
y'hidim: R. Eli'ezer and R. Y'hoshua' and their colleagues and talmidim. I
see no reason to assume this took place in a yeshiva building, but it
is natural that talmidim who are away from home and learning by their
rebbes will be invited to the rebbes for the seder, especially if there
were a hundred people there anyway. But it is a dovor poshut to me that
the seder was with the families as well

SBA: <Another shaaloh to our non-Posek, Reb Seth: when is it 'G-d'
and when may we use the 'o' (and when should we simply say "Hashem")?>

I raised this issue before on the lists, and it sunk like a stone b'mayim
addirim (no response).

I quoted the Rambam that said that the name of G-d in any other language
(including Arabic, which was a hiddush, because in Arabic it's almost the
same as Hebrew) is just a kinnuy, and has no halokhos of shem haShem. Just
as you are allowed to write Horahamon in Hebrew without a chupchik (with
a nod to another poster, "shtrichel"), so you are allowed to write G-d
or the Lord in English without a dash. This is not just the CQ guessing
things from the Rambam here; every rov I know who has learned through the
sugya came to the same conlclusion, and I have heard several (and those
who want to know what RYBS said about this can ask me offline). People
write G-d because of harhoqo y'sero; they feel uncomfortable about writing
G-d because of their training that in Hebrew it is osur. That's fine,
but I like to distinguish between the muttar and the osur, and so I write
G-d. Again, my own personal preference; people who prefer harhoqo y'sera
are welcome to. And some may even have a psaq to that effect; although
I myself would challenge the Rov who made the psaq on what his basis was.

Hashem is also personal preference. I listened to many g'dolim, and that
was not a term they used; they used HQB'H or RBS'O or der Eibershter;
the term haShem was only used as a replacement for shem adnus or yod ke
vov ke when quoting a posuq or something from davening. I don't know where
the idea started of using haShem to refer to G-d on a normal basis. Among
European Jews that I knew it was found in the phrase "mirtze-ashem," but
not in other speech (again, they used Got or der Eibershter in Yiddish,
or the above variants in Hebrew). This is my ignorance; I would welcome
testimony from the list members about European Jews or old-time G'dolim
about how they referred to G-d in their speech.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:48:17 -0500 "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
writes:
> IIRC there is a diyuk in the Rambam to eat seudah sh'lishis after Mincha.

Specifics, please. Also, is this brought anywhere lehalacha besides
the Rambam?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

the one who is machmir is the Ravid perek 6 hal 5 you can look it up in
the rambam

On 28 Mar 01, at 17:21, Harry Maryles wrote:
> It is brought down in "Maseh HaRav" (Os 185) that the Gra did not eat
> Shaleshudes on Yomim Tovim but did do so on Achron Shel Pesach because
> of his love of the Mitzva of eating Matzah and the Zman Mitzva was about
> to end.

Is there any inyan of eating Shalesh Seudos on (non-Shabbos days of)
Yom Tov?

Here they usually make a "Simchas HaChag" after Mincha on the last day
(IIRC even if it is chal on Shabbos).

-- Carl

yesterday I posted - 
> I was at shiur this past Sunday where the Rov explained this connection.
> B'kiztur that we aspire to live lives of kedusha, the ba al arusaso
> b'bais chamav is someone with no self control - he cannot wait until
> (birchas) nisuin. Similarly one who eats matzah on EP and won't wait
> until he can eat it as a mitzvah...

I neglected to say that he was quoting Maharal. Also, I should have
added *after sof zman achilas chometz* to "one who eats matzah on EP"

He also quoted (iirc) a Ritz Gaioos who uses "baerev tochlu matzos"
as a reason for the issur.

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

2 points on this issue.

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> Don't be so quick to surrender.  IMHO, the MB in 471:19 was talking about
> the case where the matzah was in big enough pieces such that there is still
> toar lechem.

1) I think R' Moshe Feldman is confusing 2 issues. One issue is whether the
matzah has a taam matzah and can be considered matzah you can be yotzei with
and the 2nd issue is once you rebake/boil etc the matzah what brachah do you
make. 
In regards to the 1st issue to me it seems pretty clear in the MB that only
boiling (and maybe frying) removes the taam matzah from the matzah.
Consequently, only boiled matzah can be eaten Erev pesach. In regards to th
e2nd issue, that is the discussion in 168.

and 

From: "Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> The Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa vol. 2 chap. 56 note 50 cites my eitza, 
> claims the MB *would* - with enough mei peiros - endorse it - and ends:
> "U'ktzas Tzorich Iyun lamah ha'Acharonim ein mevi'im eitza zu v'yotzei 
> yedei chovaso l'kil ha'dei'os."

2) I saw brought down from the Oz Nidbiru Chelk 4 Siman 43 that if there is
"Rov Davash" it is also muttar.

I don't understand the Oz Nidbiru or why the Shemiras Shabbos has a tzarich
iyun. It seems to me mefurash in SA and MB that the only thing which removes
taam matzah is bishul. Maybe you can ask why this is so-l'chorah putting
lots of honey in something should remove the taam matzah also but this
doesn't seem to be how we paskan. 

At 08:20 AM 3/28/01 +-0200, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
> Rabbi YGB suggests the use of Matzah Mehl Rolls on Erev pesach.  My
> research suggests that according to most authorities, the prohibition of
> matzah on Erev pesach includes items baked with matzah mehl (e.g., cakes
> and cookies), but not those cooked...

YGB:
> Correct. I do not understand why, but the  MB does say in 471:19 that one
> may not eat Matzo Meal products rebaked, even with wine and oil, on Erev
> Pesach (he seems not to  cite any source for this chumrah). Oh well, so
> much for my proposal.

Why not just boil the matza meal (would irui kli rishon suffice to nullify
shaym matzah?) before kneading in the other liquid ingredients?

Noach Witty

I recall hearing that the 9 kav have to be poured b'vas achas, and that
for this purpose, it will suffice if the water is poured in a continuous
stream, even if over several minutes. I heard that the intention was for
very old-fashioned showers, not ours. Our showers often have multitudes
of individual drops coming from the shower head, and even where it is a
steady stream, most shower heads actually dispense a dozen or more
separate streams, and I wonder if that would be okay.

Obviously, Rav Tzuriel would have been talking about modern showers, but
I'm curious if anyone ever heard anything like what I wrote above.

Thanks
Akiva Miller

From: "Rabbi Y. H. Henkin" <henkin@surfree.net.il>
> Rema Orach Chayim 606:4 from Maharam B'B.

Im hu mitzta'er b'tvila--  MB shom s'k 22

KT
Avrohom Weidberg

This is dicussed in Minchat Yitzchak 4-21.

> Then why do we set the date for Pesach, as we do for Succos? One would
> think that Shabbos, which is primarily IdE, is of course a schedule
> set by HKBH, and that yamim tovim depend on beis din's kiddush hachodesh
> just because it sets dates for IdT. In which case, how does Pesach
> jibe?

* * * *

> OT1H we have "shuvah eilai vi'ashuvah aleichem" -- IdT comes first. OTOH,
> in this week's haftorah we have "shuvah eilai ki ge'alticha" -- return to
> Me, because I have redeemed you [bilashon avar]. Apparantly the IdE
> came already, and all that awaits our ge'ulah is our IdT as a second step.

The first Pesach was pretty much IdE.  There was a certain amount of low
grade IdT -  Hashem heard the people's groans-  plus there was Moshe
Rabenu's personal preparation as go'el which took many years.
However IdE on Shavuos has the potential to be on a much higher level since
we have the entire sephira to prepare ourselves spiritually.

>> OTOH-  you might think the opposite:  human effort is required to bring the
>> flour and water together but fermentation is inevitable process over time.

> Except that leavened dough is a representation of ego. I think the idea
> is to look at the cheftzah as the symbol, not the pe'ulah by which one
> gets the cheftzah.

Yes, but it still matches.  How does ego work?  First, we learn, acquire a
new good concept. We hang onto this good thought in our minds, go over it,
go over it, own it, attach all kinds of other things to it, make it part of
our territory of opinion but we rarely ACT on it straight away. We
"machmitz" it.  Yes it does require our input but this is not *labour* ,
it's just something the human psyche naturally just does-  path of least
resistance, because that path is enjoyable, pleasurable.  Warm baked buns
are more pleasurable to eat than matza because of this fermentation process.
However, when we act straight away on a good concept we get, we don't hold
that concept for our own, we translate it immediately into avodas Hashem-
this is matza.

> If I may now get into more esoteric territory, this dialectic between
> IdE and IdT can be used to frame a chiluk I noticed between the Besht
> and the Ben Ish Chai in how to meditate. (I said I was going esoteric.)

Ise already, but now you're getting practical!  :-)

> The Besh"t writes of meditation as a way of reaching Heichalos and Olamos
> ha'Elyonim. For example Noach 66, Shemini 1, 6.

> The BICh offers a pre-tefillah meditation...                       In
> Adnus in the latter Hei that one finds in many Sepharadi siddurim. In
> this process, a person takes variations of the sheim and places them
> "down" onto the self, making oneself a merkavah for HKBH.

> IOW, the Besht has one rising up, IdT; the BICh has one accepting IdE.

Or else it's a difference in emphasis/viewpoint since it seems that both
elements must be present in both meditations.  In the BiCh it seems the
making oneself a merkavah is more of a passive process.  Not necessarily so
passive since many of these meditations required preparation-  immerson in
mikveh for example. Such preparation in the latter could constitute a
certain amount of IdT, you're preparing the cli,  defining your ratzon to be
a cli.

> Yom Tov, as an IdT (actually, as my wife pointed out, this should be  IdS 
> (Is'arusa d'l'Satah), is at time to reach out, via simchas Yom Tov,  for 
> additional illumination - but it is not bestowed upon us.  That is probably 
> why R' Eliezer holds that one can celebrate YT by  Kullo la'Hashem.

Ayen sham in Tos. that davka achila and shtiya is the compensation for losing 
the neshama yeseira, not 'kulo l"hashem', also the beracha of neshama yeseira 
is alluded to by Ramban/Ibn Ezra in the very place Rashi describes the 
birchas shabbos as man, i.e. ochel.  Man=hashpa'ah m'l'eila, as opposed to 
the heter ochel nefesh on Y"T prepared by man, davka 'lachem v'lo l'gavoha', 
the avodah is to achieve that madreiga through chomer.  The machlokes of 
neshama yeseira will parallel the machlokes in Tos. Beitza 2b whether man 
fell on Y"T.  Lo nitna Torah elah l'ochlei haman=bechinas Shabbos, as the man 
fell in double-portion on Shabbos, and the gemara says Torah was given on 
Shabbos -  the parallel is R"E's shita that davka by Shavuos, yom sh'nitna bo 
Torah, even R"E is modeh that one cannot spend the day kulo l"hashem but must 
have chatzi lachem.

-Chaim B.

RE the neshomo yeseiro:
>>The Sfas Emes writes in order to answer Tosaphos that since the "Neshama 
>>Yeseira" that you get on Yom Tov comes as a result of you own input (for 
>>Kedushas Yom Tov is created by Yisroel unlike Kedushas Shabos) it does 
>>not go away after Yom Tov, unlike the "Neshama Yeseira" from Shabbos that 
>>in light of the fact that it comes totally from "Shefa Elyon" it leaves 
>>after Shabbos.  (I assume he means that by Yom Tov it is sort of added on 
>>to your Neshama)

At 07:14 PM 3/28/01 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Ah, the problem with RSRH.

>RSRH?! I quoted my great grandfather, R' YAA Krieger, who in his day was
>the rav of non-Austritt frum community of Frankfurt!

I guess all Frankfurt affiliates were mushpa - something in the water.

>: Har is above us, and the aura emanates from above down - IdE
>: Sadeh is something I work at and raise the crop therein up - IdT
>: Bayis, we can agree on - Ze'eir Anpin.

>The problem is that Avraham isn't standing betachtis hahar. His mountain
>climbing through 10 nisyonos to the akeidah -- at the top of the mountain.
>Nor did Yitzchak see a field as a place in which he worked. He went
>lasu'ach basadeh. His normal relationship to fields were that he went to
>ownerless fields, supported entirely through siyata dishmaya, and let his
>sheep eat there.

It is, of course, a little fruitless to argue symbolism. Remember that 
RAYHK's ta'anah on RSRH was on his deployment of symbolism.

But, that having been said.

You are correct. Avrohom Avinu does represent IdT and Yitzchok IdE. AA, of 
course, found HKB"H on his own, and represents our expansiveness towards 
Hashem. Yitzchok, on the other hand, represents one who was nimol l'shmona, 
without his own isa'rusa and hishtadlus, and represents inner-directedness 
and contraction.

But.

As paradigms in the network of sefiros, AA represents the unlimited 
hashpo'oh of HKB"H towards us (Chesed) and Yitzchok the limited hashpo'oh 
(Gevurah), which is contingent on zechus. Thus, to the best of my very 
limited understanding, when we take Avos as personsa, they do not reflect 
their own Avodah, but rather, how Hashem relates to us in a similar manner.

>:>> R' Shlomo Fisher notes that Shabbos is, overwhelmingly, a manifestation of
>:>> IdE, as opposed to Yom Tov, which is IdT - except for Pesach, where the
>:>> Ge'ulah was an IdE - without Am Yisroel's merit, or even great longing ...

>: >Then why do we set the date for Pesach, as we do for Succos? One would
>: >think that Shabbos, which is primarily IdE, is of course a schedule
>: >set by HKBH, and that yamim tovim depend on beis din's kiddush hachodesh
>: >just because it sets dates for IdT. In which case, how does Pesach
>: >jibe?
>
>: Good question! Nu, zog a teirutz...
>
>If I had one, I would have given it yesterday.

Nobody out there got any answers?!

Just came across the Michtav Me'Eliyahu vol. 5 p. 429, b'feirush and 
b'kitzur Shabbos as IdT Friday night ("nukvah" - Kallah); IdE ("dechurah") 
Shabbos morning (my note: The Avos sought out Hashem, Hashem sought out 
Moshe), Shabbos afternoon Unification and influence ("Tolados") on the 
following week. Speaks out the Ba, Bo, Bam, and bottom and top Challah 
distinctions.

My note:

Bah=7.
Bo=8.
Bam=42 (shem shel Mem Beis).

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

R' Tzadok brings that the first time a concept is mentioned in the Torah is 
the shoresh of that inyan. The word "Kahal" appears for the first time in 
the Torah in Shemos 12, in the context of Korban Pesach.

The Sidduro shel Shabbos at the end of Shoresh  6 Anaf 1 explains the 
statement in Tehillim "Tehilaso b'Kahal Chassidim" that through Kahal, the 
gevuros become chasadim. He explains that in KH"L the H = the five gevuros, 
and the K-L = the five chasadim (5x26 [Shem Havaya"h] = 130. Note the 
significance of a other 130's, such as "Tzam' - fasts turn gevuros into 
chasadim). He alludes to what is brought in seforim that in davening, a t 
least, one should clasp one's left hand with and envelope it in the right - 
enveloping the gevuros in the chasadim.

This past Purim I expounded on the idea of "NiKHaLu ha'Yehudim" as the 
fundamental concept of Purim, and that many of the incidents in Purim took 
place in various forms of "chatzer". Indeed, the first place in Tanach that 
Adar is mentioned is in Parashas Mas'ei: "Chatzar Adar".

The Chatzer is the Outer World, removed from the direct presence of the 
King - whether it be Achashveirosh or HKB"H.

Chatzer also tells us how to deal with the Hester Panim inherent in that 
distance from HKB"H. The R represents Rah, the Evil that springs from the 
concealment of HKB"H's presence. CHaTZeR = Chetz Rah, split the Rah in 
half. Half Rah = Kahal (270/2 = 135). The response to Rah, and the manner 
in which one breaks through that concealment, is by unifying the Kahal 
(135) in Tzom (136), Kol  (136), Mammon (136) - the KHL plus the agent of 
yichud (known in gematriyah as the "Kollel").

Adar is a time of Chatzar, but Nisan is a bechina of "Hevi'ani ha'Melech 
Chadarav"  - the great Ohr of the Seder night. Lo l'chinam did the  actual 
event of Purim occur on Pesach! The mitzvos of Kiddush ha'Chodesh and 
Korbon Pesach united Am Yisroel: first via the Beis Din concept, then 
via  each and every individual. The Korbon Pesach is  done en masse and 
eaten b'chaburah. Ho b'ho talyah. The Ohr only comes to a Kahal and only a 
Kahal can be zocheh to the Ohr.

Tein l'Chochom v'yechkam od...

KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

At 03:39 PM 3/27/01 +0200, Menachem Burack wrote:
>In a similar vain... I saw an interesting Or Zarua (chelek alef; siman
>140) who writes that we don't make a brocho on emuna, yirah and ahavas
>Hashem because..... they are mitzvos tmidiyos.

>Why doesn't he say like the BY that one does not make a brocho on a
>dovor she'b'lev?

In MC #2 p. 60 RCPS asks a VIDC between the BY on BC and Hafroshas Terumos 
u'Ma'asros which may be done b'lev and there is a brocho. RCPS himself 
brings down an interesting array of Litvishe and non-Litvishe resolutions.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

*******************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]